Conference Posters and Materials: Beware! They Can Constitute Prior Art

In the academic world, it is common for researchers to attend and present their findings at conferences. Papers presented will typically end up as part of conference handouts or available online for future use. PowerPoint slides used in presentations are also sometimes published or distributed. Posters are often set up where attendees may view them. Conversations between researchers happen after presentations, and at numerous coffee breaks and networking events. In the publish or perish world of academia, conferences provide one of the best venues to present your ideas and research and meet with like-minded people.

Similarly, in the corporate world tradeshows are often used to show off products and demonstrate their features and capabilities to potential customers. Trade show booths often include demonstration systems, brochures, and marketing presentations that are only available for the two or three days of the show. Copies of brochures and presentations may be saved or may be destroyed afterwards.

Unfortunately, what is good for the sharing of information is often not good for the patenting of inventions that arise from the research and products presented at these conferences. The subject matter of a patent claim must not have been previously disclosed, and the invention must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art or science to which it pertains[1]. Conference presentations, presentation slides, and posters can all be prior art, whether they come from an inventor or someone else, and can prevent you from patenting your inventions.

Posters are an interesting case in that they may often be displayed for just a few hours, be viewed by passersby, and usually do not become part of the published conference proceedings. They are often untraceable or destroyed later. They often will not contain enough information to prevent an invention from being novel, but nevertheless may form part of the state of the art that must be considered when determining if an invention contains an inventive step.

In Biogen Canada Inc. v. Taro Pharmaceuticals Inc., 2020 FC 621, a poster was presented at a conference in Baltimore in 2002, 18 years previous. The poster was available to the court but had only been presented for a short time at the conference, and in the intervening years could not have been found even with a reasonably diligent search. Nevertheless, expert testimony established that the poster was indeed genuine and therefore its contents formed part of the state of the art in 2002 for determining obviousness of the patent claims in question. The poster, together with information found in other sources of prior art, were enough to find the patent claims in question obvious and invalid. This case is interesting since a poster, only presented for a short time at the conference and thereafter not being available, was used to establish the state of the prior art 18 years ago.

In Mediatube Corp. v. Bell Canada, 2017 FC 6 the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s Fibe TV service could be modified to infringe its patents. Bell argued that all limitations of the relevant patent claims had been disclosed in a number of sources, including brochures and prototype systems that had been presented at the SuperComm tradeshow in June 1998, 19 years previous. Brochures were available to the court. Mediatube argued that the brochure was only disclosed at the tradeshow and could not be considered to have been available to the public as it could not later be found in a reasonably diligent search by a skilled person. With the help of expert testimony, the court decided that the brochures and presentations of the systems, despite only being available for a short time, were part of the state of the art at the time and could be considered when determining the validity of Mediatube’s patent claims.

On the other hand, in Valence Technology, Inc. v. Phostech Lithium Inc., 2011 FC 174, the defendant was challenging the validity of plaintiff’s patents. Phostech asserted that conference publications, presentations, and posters presented twelve years previous were prior art to at least some of the patent claims. The presenter had also had discussions while at the conference. The poster had since been destroyed and could not be presented to the court. When defining the common general knowledge at the key date the judge decided to exclude the presentations, posters, and any discussions that may have happened. Though not stated, this may have been because the poster had been destroyed and that there were no experts to testify to its contents or importance.

It is difficult to determine in advance if a poster will later be found to form part of the state of the art when considering patent validity. For prior art, such as a poster, that may only be presented for a few hours at a scientific or industry conference, it is uncertain whether it can be considered part of the body of prior art of which a person skilled in the art could be said to possess, especially since it may not be found later even through a reasonably diligent search. Like any disclosure, the best practice is to:

1. Review all public disclosures, even those that are short-lived and will be unavailable later.

2. Be careful what kind of information you put on a poster. Try to use more general information on all conference materials if possible.

3. If you must disclose detailed information, restrict any disclosures to individuals or groups in a non-public space under NDA.

4. File a provisional or utility patent application before the event.

5. Review and document what others present. Smartphones make it easy.

Better to be safe than sorry!

If you are considering filing a patent and worried about your conference/event disclosure, please feel free to contact MBM for a free consultation.

David Fraser, Patent Agent
T: 613.801.0169
E: dfraser@mbm.com

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

---

[1] Canadian Patent Act 28.2 and 28.3. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-4/page-10.html#docCont

Image: https://www.freepik.com/vectors/table'>Table vector created by macrovector - www.freepik.com

Does Copyright Extend to “facts”? The Federal Court Sets the Story Straight on the Extent of Copyright Protection in Nonfiction Work

INTRODUCTION

In the recent 2021 decision of Winkler v. Hendley, 2021 FC 498 [Winkler], the Federal Court (the “Court”) addressed an unusual issue of copyright protection in a nonfictional work containing descriptions of events with questionable historical accuracy. In its decision, the Court reiterated that copyright protection does not extend to facts. Moreover, when a work is presented as nonfiction, the facts are not subject to copyright protection. This case serves to reinforce the scope of copyright protection and sets an important precedent in Canada for copyright in nonfictional works.

CASE BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE DISPUTE

In Winkler, the plaintiffs, John Winkler and the estate of the late author Thomas Kelley (“Mr. Kelley”) sued author, Nate Hendley (“Mr. Hendley”), and his publisher, James Lorimer & Company Ltd., the defendants, for copyright infringement. In 1954, Mr. Kelley published a book called The Black Donnellys, which was published and sold as a nonfictional account of a notorious family from Lucan, Ontario. In 2004, Mr. Hendley wrote and published a book called The Black Donnellys: The Outrageous Tale of Canada’s Deadliest Feud (the “Outrageous Tale”), which cited The Black Donnellys as authority for many of the historical events detailed in the book. Despite The Black Donnellys being published as nonfiction, the plaintiffs argued that some of the events described in the book were actually fictional, or contained embellishments made by the author. It was on the basis of these alleged embellishments and “fictional accounts” that the plaintiffs based their claim of copyright infringement against the defendants under sections 3[1] and 27[2] of the Copyright Act (the “Act”).

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

In its analysis, the Court began by clarifying that in Canada, copyright subsists “in every original literary work”, regardless of “whether that work is one of fiction or nonfiction”[3]. The Court further reiterated the longstanding principle that there is no copyright protection in facts or ideas, but rather, copyright protects the original expression of those ideas. What is critical for copyright infringement is whether there was a substantial taking of the work in issue, defined as the “part of the work that represents a substantial portion of the authors’ skill and judgment”[4]. Importantly, the historical accuracy of the presented facts in a work is not contemplated by the Act. Therefore, the factual aspects of The Black Donnellys were excluded from the Court’s comparison of passages from The Black Donnellys and the Outrageous Tale in its determination of whether there was copying of a “substantial part” of the originality of The Black Donnellys.

After the facts were excluded, the Court concluded that any similarities between the works were so minimal that they did not amount to a substantial taking. Therefore, the Court held that there was no copyright infringement. Moreover, the Court stressed that an author cannot publish a work as nonfiction and later claim that the facts were actually fiction for the purpose of pursuing a copyright case. There are clear public policy reasons behind this principle; the public should be able to rely upon published facts without the concern that the author will later turn around and sue for copyright infringement at a whim. The Court did leave open the possibility that future cases may arise in which asserted “facts” are so implausible that the work must be interpreted as a fiction; however, this scenario was not applicable in this case.

IMPORTANCE OF COURT DECISION AND KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Winkler is the first Canadian decision addressing a nonfiction work that was later claimed to be fiction.
• The law is similar in other countries; for example, in the United States, the doctrine of copyright estoppel (also known as the “asserted truths” doctrine) protects against copyright holders of a nonfiction work who subsequently seek to claim that the work is fiction as grounds for copyright infringement.
• The Court further affirmed the longstanding principle that there is no copyright protection in facts or ideas but rather the expression of those ideas. Importantly, as a general rule, the accuracy of such facts or ideas is not contemplated for the purposes of copyright protection.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision in Winkler is an important consideration for authors who intend to publish and market a book, and highlights the need to look to the future regarding the scope of copyright protection in a published work. Of particular importance is the need to be clear about what is being presented as fact and what is embellished in a nonfictional account. Therefore, prospective authors should also consider consulting with a lawyer experienced in copyright law to discuss how they can best protect their rights in a given literary work.

For expert assistance with any issues pertaining to copyright in a work, please reach out to MBM for a free consultation:

Scott Miller, Co-Managing Partner, Head of the Litigation Department
T: 613.801.1099
E: smiller@mbm.com

Carly Horvath, 2022 Articling Student
T: 613.801.0456
E: chorvath@mbm.com

---

[1] Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42, s 3(1).

Copyright in works

3 (1) For the purposes of this Act, copyright, in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever.

[2] Ibid, s 27(1).

Infringement generally

27 (1) It is an infringement of copyright for any person to do, without the consent of the owner of copyright, anything that by this Act only the owner of the copyright has the right to do.

[3] Winkler at paras 53-54 citing CCH Canada Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13 at paras 8, 14.

[4] Cinar Corporation v Robinson, 2013 SCC 73 at para 26.

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

Late Report of Patent Grant leads to Irretrievable Loss of Drug Patent Register Listing Rights

Merck Canada Inc. v Canada (Health), 2021 FC 345

The grant of a patent containing a claim that relates to a medicine or use of the medicine approved by Health Canada triggers a 30-day deadline from the date of payment of the final fee to list the patent on the Patent Register maintained by the Therapeutic Products Directorate. A careful review of the timing of the grant after payment of the Final Fee (i.e., Issue Fee) in this case and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office’s service standards offers valuable lessons.

In this decision, the Federal Court (the “FC”) dismissed an application for judicial review brought by Merck Canada Inc. (“Merck”) over the refusal by the Minister of Health (the “Minister”) to add Canadian Patent No. 2,830,806 (the “‘806 Patent”) to the Patent Register pursuant to section 4(6) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the “PM(NOC) Regulations”).

BACKGROUND

Merck markets KEYTRUDA®, a biologic drug for the treatment of certain advanced-stage cancers. The ‘806 Patent was issued on May 12, 2020, and contains claims that are directed to a formulation of the drug KEYTRUDA®.

The issuance of the ‘806 Patent was not reported by the Canadian patent agent retained by Merck’s American parent company (“Merck USA”) until June 15, 2020, more than a month after the patent had issued. Merck USA had however independently learned of the issuance on June 12, 2020 and immediately instructed Merck to take the necessary next steps. Patent lists were submitted the same day, but after the close of business, and were therefore deemed to have been filed on Monday, June 15, 2020.

On June 19, 2020, the Minister informed Merck of the preliminary determination that the patent lists relating to the ‘806 Patent were ineligible for being submitted outside of the 30-day window stipulated in section 4(6) of the PM(NOC) Regulations. Merck replied with written representations and affidavit evidence.

The Minister later confirmed on November 6, 2020 that the patent lists relating to the ‘806 Patent were ineligible for inclusion on the Patent Register holding, among other elements, that the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19) (the “Time Limits Act”) does not extend the deadline within which first persons may submit patent lists in accordance with s 4(6) of the PM(NOC) Regulations; and that the 30-day deadline in section 4(6) of the PM(NOC) Regulations is not discretionary.

ANALYSIS

Merck argued that the Minister’s refusal would deprive the patent holder of substantial protections available under the PM(NOC) Regulations. Additionally, Merck said it would suffer prejudice because a subsequent entrant would be able to file a drug submission after the expiry of the six-year “no file” period for KEYTRUDA®, on May 19, 2021.

The issues, in this case, were a) was the Minister’s determination reasonable that the Time Limits Act cannot be applied here and as a result cannot suspend the 30-day time period specified in section 4(6) of the PM(NOC) Regulations? And b) was the Minister’s determination reasonable that she had no discretion to extend the 30-day time period specified in section 4(6) of the PM(NOC) Regulations?

The FC determined that the Minister’s decision would be subject to review against the standard of reasonableness, meaning the FC would only intervene if “there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency.”

With regard to the reasonableness of the Minister’s determination, that the Time Limits Act did not cause suspending of the 30-day time period specified in section 4(6) of the PM(NOC) Regulations, the FC found that the Time Limits Act applied in only three circumstances: limitation or prescription periods for commencing a proceeding before a court; time limits for doing something in a proceeding before a court; and time limits where a party makes an application for leave of a court, either to commence a court proceeding or to do something in relation to a court proceeding. Merck asserted that section 4(6) of the PM(NOC) Regulations functions as a “gateway” to the summary litigation provisions that begin at section 6(1), and therefore Merck argued that the 30-day period specified in section 4(6) of the PM(NOC) Regulations is a “limitation period within a limitation period.” The FC concluded that the listing of a patent on the Patent Register pursuant to section 4(6) of the PM(NOC) Regulations is too remote from the commencement of a court proceeding under section 6(1) to constitute a “limitation period within a limitation period” for the purpose of section 6(1) of the Time Limits Act.

With regard to the Minister’s determination that she had no discretion to extend the 30-day time period specified in section 4(6) of the PM(NOC) Regulations being reasonable, Merck relied on a previous FC decision to argue that the Minister may add a “late” patent list to the Patent Register. The FC was not convinced of this argument though, maintaining that it is well established that the timelines prescribed by the PM(NOC) Regulations are exact. The FC further added that the 2017 amendments to the PM(NOC) Regulations also did not confer any new discretionary powers to the Minister.

The FC concluded that the Minister’s decision was justified, intelligible and transparent, and therefore reasonable. No costs were awarded by agreement of the parties.

COMMENTARY

A patent will only issue in Canada following payment of the Final Fee. The Client Service Standards at CIPO for grant of a patent after payment of the Final Fee is stated as being within 12 weeks (Client Service Standards - Canadian Intellectual Property Office).

The Final Fee for the ‘806 application was paid on March 20, 2020. The ‘806 patent granted 53 days later (about 7½ weeks) well before the 12 weeks service standard. A brief review of recently issued patents in Canada indicates that the quick grant of the ‘806 patent was not an anomaly and that patents are regularly granting within 6 to 8 weeks of payment of the Final Fee.

A key takeaway from this case is that once the Final Fee is paid for applications that are eligible for listing on the Patent Register, the CIPO database should be monitored closely for grant of the patent. To help with that, CIPO now also lists “Forecast Issue Date” on the Administrative Status page for each patent application and further sends a notification by email that the patent has granted. Please note that this is also applicable when filing a divisional application after payment of the Final Fee.

For more information please contact:

Claire Palmer, Ph.D., Senior Patent Agent
T: 613.801.0450
E: cpalmer@mbm.com

Osman Ismaili, Patent Agent & Lawyer
T: 613.801.1054
E: oismaili@mbm.com

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

Industrial Designs - Why Should You Protect Your Unique Designs?

 

Industrial designs (“ID”) protect a product’s unique appearance such as shape, configuration, pattern and/or ornamental features. The protection can be obtained for the design of the entire finished article or just a part of it. Examples of industrial designs can be found everywhere, ranging from your cellphone’s overall shape and graphic user interface to the colour patterns of your clothes.

The exclusive right conferred by the Industrial Design Act does not extend to what the design is made of, how it is made, or how it works. These types of considerations are protectable through patents or trade secrets. However, too often, companies focus primarily on patent protection to the exclusion of other intellectual property rights. Simply put, industrial design protection should not be neglected where shape and configuration assist in a product’s marketability. ID protection can be used alone or in conjunction with other forms of intellectual property as a less expensive means to stop infringing activity.

How the Registration System Works in Canada

Canada employs a first-to-file system which means it is not necessarily who designed first that is entitled to an ID registration but rather it is a race of who files it first at the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”). To obtain an ID registration, it is necessary that the design be novel, which means that no identical or substantially similar design has ever been registered or disclosed. Therefore, if designer ‘1’ created a novel design before designer ‘2’ but designer ‘1’ did not file an application or publicly disclose the novel design (i.e., left the design prototype in their garage or computer) and designer ‘2’ independently created a substantially similar design and filed for the design within 12 months from designer ‘2’s’ public disclosure, then designer ‘2’ will be entitled to the industrial design registration. Notably, an applicant (i.e., designer ‘2’) is given a 12-month window (grace period) to file from its public disclosure or the public disclosure by a person who obtained knowledge of the ID directly or indirectly from the applicant (designer ‘2’).

Before filing, you should conduct a thorough search, preferably with professional assistance from an intellectual property lawyer, to ensure your design is novel and has not been previously registered or disclosed.

Applications are kept confidential until the earlier of either the registration date or 30 months after the application filing date or priority date. Therefore, the design disclosed in the application will become available to the public following the expiry of the confidentiality period. As such, if an applicant does not wish to disclose a design prior to a product launch, careful consideration should be given to the approximate time it typically takes from application to registration of an ID (12 to 18 months).

After registration, you only have to pay a one-time maintenance fee at the 5-year mark. The application process for an industrial design is much faster than that of a patent application. The exclusive right granted by the CIPO registration begins on the registration date and ends on the later of the end of 10 years after the registration date or the end of 15 years after the filing date. Therefore, an ID registration exclusivity is anywhere from 10 to 15 years.

Converting an Industrial Design into a “Perpetual” Trademark Right which can be used to Enforce Copyright

Through proactive and strategic planning, ID’s can be used as an effective tool to ultimately result in perpetual protection for a design.

Designs such as three-dimensional shapes can be registered as non-traditional trademarks under the Trademarks Act. However, in order to obtain a shape trademark registration, unlike a regular trademark, it is necessary to provide proof (evidence) of distinctiveness of the trademark at the date of filing of the shape trademark application. To overcome the hurdle of distinctiveness, a meaningful strategy is to first secure an industrial design registration, build up distinctiveness through the monopoly granted by the industrial design registration, and at some point, during the term of the ID registration, file an application for the shape trademark. Once registered, the shape trademark is valid for 10 years and can be renewed indefinitely every 10 years. In other words, a shape trademark can exist in perpetuity with use.

The Canadian Copyright Act permits the reverse engineering of an article if more than 50 articles are made. However, if the article (i.e., shape) is itself a trademark, then it is prohibited to reverse engineer the article without infringing copyright. Therefore, the ID can be used to support a distinctiveness claim for trademark rights and ultimately lead to enforcement through copyright.

International Protection by the Hague System

To avoid submitting individual applications in each country of interest, the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs provides an option to register an industrial design in multiple countries by filing a single international application (Hague application) with the International Bureau (IB) of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

The IB of WIPO verifies compliance with formal requirements only, without any examination for novelty. A Hague application that complies with the formal requirements is recorded in the International Register and published in the International Designs Bulletin, followed by a substantial examination by each country identified in your application under its domestic law.

In respect of Canada, the international registration is valid for the first 5 years from the date of the international registration and may be renewed twice, namely, at the 5-year mark and the 10-year mark.

Summary

A valid ID registration provides the exclusive right to prevent others from making, selling or importing an article that embodies or is substantially similar to the registered ID.

Always try to think outside the box as part of your business strategy as it is important to identify all aspects of your IP assets. For example:

• a unique design may be protected by an ID registration;
• the new, inventive and useful functionality of the product may be covered by a patent;
• the logo of the product may be registered as a trademark;
• the advertising campaign video to promote your product may be protected by copyright.

In conclusion, you should always utilize a combination of IP assets to maximize your IP protection, depending on your budget and your new product development plan.

If you have any intellectual property questions, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

For more information please contact:
Scott Miller, Co-Managing Partner, Head of the Litigation Department
T: 613.801.1099
E: smiller@mbm.com

Grace Wang, Associate Lawyer
T: 613.801.1072
E: gwang@mbm.com

 

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

Copyrights in Canada – Process, Timeline, Costs, and the Upcoming Proposed Changes to the Copyright Act

Most people are familiar with patents and trademarks as the most common forms of intellectual property, however, copyrights and their importance as part of your overall portfolio of intellectual property assets are sometimes neglected. This article attempts to broadly cover the subject of copyrights in Canada in terms of process, timeline, costs, as well as the upcoming proposed changes to the Copyright Act.

What rights does a copyright holder have?

Copyright is defined by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) as an exclusive right to produce, reproduce, publish, or perform an original literary, artistic, dramatic, or musical work.

A common misconception is that copyright protects an idea. The truth is that copyright does not protect the idea itself but instead protects the expression of an idea. This expression needs to be “fixed” in a tangible medium (written or recorded) for you to be able to copyright it. For example, copyright gives you the right to control the expression of your original written or recorded speech. As a result, you can charge a fee for allowing another party to express themselves in the same way you expressed yourself in your copyrighted speech as well as your copyrighted literary, artistic, dramatic, and musical works.

How long do copyrights last?

Copyright in Canada currently exists for the author’s lifetime, the remainder of the calendar year in which the author dies, plus 50 years following that calendar year.

However, changes to these current time limits are coming. On February 11, 2021, the Canadian government announced that due to the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), Canada has agreed to extend, by the end of 2022, the protection period to a minimum of the author’s lifetime, the remainder of the calendar year in which the author died, plus 70 years following that calendar year.

Why register copyrights?

Copyright is automatic and protects an original work the moment the work is created. Therefore, copyright does not have to be registered for an author to have copyright rights.

However, registering copyright for your work can be very beneficial because going through the official registration process with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) results in a registration certificate. This registration certificate is an official Canadian government document that is proof that you have rights to your work’s expression and provides a date stamp. This registration certificate can be persuasive evidence when suing someone who is infringing your rights.

How long does it take to register a copyright?

Copyright registration can generally be obtained within a few weeks.

How much does it cost to register a copyright?

Copyright registration is relatively inexpensive. The full process from drafting the copyright application, ensuring that the work is categorized correctly, filing it, reviewing the issued certificate of registration, and sending it to the author, is approximately $400, including MBM professional fees and the required government fees.

What are the steps to register a copyright?

The first step is to draft and file a copyright application.

A crucial piece of information required at this step is the date and place of your work’s publication. It is critical to make sure that CIPO correctly records the date and place of publication if in the future you decide to litigate against an infringer and the infringer argues that their work predates your work.

The next step in the process is an examination of the application by CIPO. If the CIPO examiner determines that the application requires changes, amendments to the application will need to be filed to prevent rejection. Once all the objections are satisfied, the application will register, and the registration certificate will be issued.

What are the proposed amendments to the Canadian Copyright Act?

Two Private Member’s Bills C-272 and S-225, may result in changes to the Copyright Act.

Private Member's Bill, C-272 was introduced on February 22, 2021, to add section 41.121 to the Copyright Act to modify the treatment of technological protection measures (TPMs). TMPs reduce copyright infringement by controlling the use of a work. The Copyright Act provides stiff penalties including, imprisonment and/or fines up to $1,000,000 for circumventing TMPs. The proposed amendment can allow a person to circumvent "a technological protection measure that controls access to a computer program if the person does so for the sole purpose of diagnosing, maintaining or repairing a product in which the computer program is embedded". As a result, Bill C-272 will add an additional circumvention exception to the current circumvention exceptions allowed by the Copyright Act. The existing circumvention exceptions include exemptions for law enforcement and national security, reverse engineering for software compatibility, encryption research, verification if a TPM permits the collection or communication of personal information, security testing of computer systems, and accessibility for disabled persons.

Private members bill S-225 was introduced on February 17, 2021, to add a section to the Copyright Act to allow remuneration for journalistic works. This bill was introduced because news stories are easily shared using social media without paying a royalty to the copyright holder. As a result, news publisher’s advertising revenue has decreased significantly while at the same time, social media platforms that facilitate this sharing have significantly increased their advertising revenue. The amendment proposes to add, "[i]f a journalistic work ... is reproduced or published on a digital platform that is owned or controlled by a designated digital platform provider, the Canadian journalism organization that owns the copyright in that journalistic work is entitled to remuneration”.

This article broadly covered the process of copyrights as well as some of the upcoming suggested changes to the Copyright Act. If you have created an original literary, artistic, dramatic, or musical work and you have further questions and would like to understand your rights and file one or more copyrights, please feel free to contact MBM for a free consultation.

For more information please contact:

Daniel Lanfranconi, Associate Lawyer
T: 613.801.1056
E: dlanfranconi@mbm.com

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.